U.S. Space program was always a waste of money.

Nasa is very much the reason we were on the top of the worlds cutting edge industries for decades.

NASA really needs to do a better job publicizing the role it has played in cutting edge technology.
How many can we name, the laptop computer, came from a design from the LEM, Lunar Excursion Module, and the computers that were used onboard. Velcro, Tang,
What other items can you people name came from the space program?
NASA spinoffs, space benefits, space history, NASA space spinoffs, NASA technology products

spacer.gif

MMU.gif
NASA Spinoffs
Bringing Space down to Earth


[SIZE=+1]Join us in our Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence from your personal computer!
[/SIZE]
shuttle1.gif
1. Computer Technology 2. Consumer/Home/Recreation 3. Environmental and Resource Management 4. Health and Medicine 5. Industrial Productivity/Manufacturing Technology 6. Public Safety 7. Transportation
shuttle2.gif
Some of the most frequently asked questions about the U.S. space program are "Why go into space when we have so many problems here on Earth?" and "What does the space program do for me?" These are legitimate questions and unfortunately not enough people have been made aware of the vast benefits the space program provides that increase the quality of our daily lives. Applications on Earth of technology needed for space flight have produced thousands of "spinoffs" that contribute to improving national security, the economy, productivity and lifestyle. It is almost impossible to find an area of everyday life that has not been improved by these spinoffs. Collectively, these secondary applications represent a substantial return on the national investment in aerospace research. We should be spending more.
Out of a $2.4 trillion budget, less than 0.8% is spent on the entire space program! That's less than 1 penny for every dollar spent. The average American spends more of their budget on their cable bill, eating out or entertainment than this yet the benefits of space flight are remarkable. It has been conservatively estimated by U.S. space experts that for every dollar the U.S. spends on R and D in the space program, it receives $7 back in the form of corporate and personal income taxes from increased jobs and economic growth. Besides the obvious jobs created in the aerospace industry, thousands more are created by many other companies applying NASA technology in nonspace related areas that affect us daily. One cannot even begin to place a dollar value on the lives saved and improved lifestyles of the less fortunate. Space technology benefits everyone and a rising technological tide does raise all boats.
One small example is the Hubble Space Telescope. Much maligned at first because of its flawed optics, it still produced better photographs than anything here on Earth. Once fixed, it has produced even more startling scientific data which we have only begun to understand and apply. One of the many spinoffs from the Hubble telescope is the use of its Charge Coupled Device (CCD) chips for digital imaging breast biopsies. The resulting device images breast tissue more clearly and efficiently than other existing technologies. The CCD chips are so advanced that they can detect the minute differences between a malignant or benign tumor without the need for a surgical biopsy. This saves the patient weeks of recovery time and the cost for this procedure is hundreds of dollars vs. thousands for a surgical biopsy. With over 500,000 women needing biopsies a year the economic benefit, per year, is tremendous and it greatly reduces the pain, scarring, radiation exposure, time, and money associated with surgical biopsies.
Below is a "small" sampling of the many other ways that space technology has improved our lives and benefited mankind. It is truly a remarkable list and not nearly complete but I believe you will begin to appreciate the answers to "Why do we go in space" and "What does the space program do for me?" So the next time you hear these questions being asked, you will be able to explain it.
Back to Top
Computer Technology - NASA Spinoffs
GROUND PROCESSING SCHEDULING SYSTEM - Computer-based scheduling system that uses artificial intelligence to manage thousands of overlapping activities involved in launch preparations of NASA's Space Shuttles. The NASA technology was licensed to a new company which developed commercial applications that provide real-time planning and optimization of manufacturing operations, integrated supply chains, and customer orders.uu
SEMICONDUCTOR CUBING - NASA initiative led to the Memory Short Stack, a three-dimensional semiconductor package in which dozens of integrated circuits are stacked one atop another to form a cube, offering faster computer processing speeds, higher levels of integration, lower power requirements than conventional chip sets, and dramatic reduction in the size and weight of memory-intensive systems, such as medical imaging devices.
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS - This NASA program, originally created for spacecraft design, has been employed in a broad array of non-aerospace applications, such as the automobile industry, manufacture of machine tools, and hardware designs.
WINDOWS VISUAL NEWS READER (Win Vn) - Software program developed to support payload technical documentation at Kennedy Space Center, allowing the exchange of technical information among a large group of users. WinVn is an enabling technology product that provides countless people with Internet access otherwise beyond their grasp, and it was optimized for organizations that have direct Internet access.
AIR QUALITY MONITOR - Utilizing a NASA-developed, advanced analytical technique software package, an air quality monitor system was created, capable of separating the various gases in bulk smokestack exhaust streams and determining the amount of individual gases present within the stream for compliance with smokestack emission standards.
VIRTUAL REALITY - NASA-developed research allows a user, with assistance from advanced technology devices, to figuratively project oneself into a computer-generated environment, matching the user's head motion, and, when coupled with a stereo viewing device and appropriate software, creates a telepresence experience.
Other spinoffs in this area include: Advanced keyboards, Customer Service Software, Database Management System, Laser Surveying, Aircraft controls, Lightweight Compact Disc, Expert System Software, Microcomputers, and Design Graphics.

Consumer/Home/Recreation - NASA Spinoffs
ENRICHED BABY FOOD - A microalgae-based, vegetable-like oil called Formulaid developed from NASA-sponsored research on long duration space travel, contains two essential fatty acids found in human milk but not in most baby formulas, believed to be important for infants' mental and visual development.
WATER PURIFICATION SYSTEM - NASA-developed municipal-size water treatment system for developing nations, called the Regenerable Biocide Delivery Unit, uses iodine rather than chlorine to kill bacteria.
SCRATCH-RESISTANT LENSES - A modified version of a dual ion beam bonding process developed by NASA involves coating the lenses with a film of diamond-like carbon that not only provides scratch resistance, but also decreases surface friction, reducing water spots.
POOL PURIFICATION - Space technology designed to sterilize water on long-duration spacecraft applied to swimming pool purification led to a system that uses two silver-copper alloy electrodes that generate silver and copper ions when an electric current passes through them to kill bacteria and algae without chemicals.
RIBBED SWIMSUIT - NASA-developed riblets applied to competition swimsuits resulted in flume testing of 10 to 15 percent faster speeds than any other world class swim-suit due to the small, barely visible grooves that reduce friction and aerodynamic drag by modifying the turbulent airflow next to the skin.
GOLF BALL AERODYNAMICS - A recently designed golf ball, which has 500 dimples arranged in a pattern of 60 spherical triangles, employs NASA aerodynamics technology to create a more symmetrical ball surface, sustaining initial velocity longer and producing a more stable ball flight for better accuracy and distance.
PORTABLE COOLERS/WARMERS - Based on a NASA-inspired space cooling system employing thermoelectric technology, the portable cooler/warmer plugs into the cigarette lighters of autos, recreational vehicles, boats, or motel outlets. Utilizes one or two miniaturized modules delivering the cooling power of a 10-pound block of ice and the heating power of up to 125 degrees Fahrenheit.
SPORTS TRAINING - Space-developed cardio-muscular conditioner helps athletes increase muscular strength and cardiovascular fitness through kinetic exercise.
ATHLETIC SHOES - Moon Boot material encapsulated in running shoe midsoles improve shock absorption and provides superior stability and motion control.
Other spinoffs in this area include: Dustbuster, shock-absorbing helmets, home security systems, smoke detectors, flat panel televisions, high-density batteries, trash compactors, food packaging and freeze-dried technology, cool sportswear, sports bras, hair styling appliances, fogless ski goggles, self-adjusting sunglasses, composite golf clubs, hang gliders, art preservation, and quartz crystal timing equipment.

and much, much more.
 
Those that claim there isn't benefit from gov't research like NASA, NIH, etc are really ignorant on the topic.

businesses are focused on doing research that will lead to a marketable product. They are not going to piss away tons of money on "basic research" which may not lead to a product for the company to make money. The basic research to make new findings that open the doors for idead for a marketable product are done largely in academia (funded heavily by the gov't) and government institutes. Industry takes a finding that could be a product, and develops it, hence making their business flourish.

20 years ago there was a huge NIH increase in Cancer funding, which paved the way for all the cancer drugs that are out today. all the money spent these days on anti microbial research for protection against bioterrorism, is going to lead to a bunch of anti microbial products in the future.



When private industry gets government funding for research, they behave like a bunch of thieves. Pharmaceutical companies are supposed to pay the money back once they start making a profit on the drugs for which the government financed the research. That is rarely, if ever, done, and then they have the nerve to tell the American public that the high cost of the drugs is because of the research involved. This country pays more for drugs than any oither country in the world because there haven't been any controls on this dishonest practice.

They pay taxes, don't they?. And where does it state that they supposed to "pay the money back. If the university patents something, they buy the license, paying back the university/institute. and they don't get gov't money, they benefit from the knowledge gained from it, and take the drug to market. Basic discovery of science is just the beginning of the process

The high cost of drugs is due to the long development process, the $800 million it costs to develop the drug and all the regulatory hurdles and huge risk in failure. Plus if the disease isn't widespread that they are treating enough to make their money they have to charge a lot. and many times they only have 7-10 years of market exclusivity to get that. it's a highly risky business, and investors expect a high return on risky ventures.

The reason why we pay more is other countries regulate what the drugs can cost, and they need to subsidize the lower prices here. US is the biggest market also.
 
Nasa is very much the reason we were on the top of the worlds cutting edge industries for decades.

NASA really needs to do a better job publicizing the role it has played in cutting edge technology.
How many can we name, the laptop computer, came from a design from the LEM, Lunar Excursion Module, and the computers that were used onboard. Velcro, Tang,
What other items can you people name came from the space program?

Cool" Laser Heart Surgery
Space Telescope science
Body Imaging
New Arms and Legs
Infrared Thermometer
Light emitting diodes (LED)
Composite Forceps
Pill-Sized Transmitter
Chromosome Analysis
Digital Mammography
Camera on a Chip
Lightning Protection
Windshear Prediction
Collision Avoidance
Cordless Power Tools and Appliances
Smoke Detector
Clean Water for the Home
Home Insulation
Firefighter Breathing System
Global Communications
 
NASA really needs to do a better job publicizing the role it has played in cutting edge technology.
How many can we name, the laptop computer, came from a design from the LEM, Lunar Excursion Module, and the computers that were used onboard. Velcro, Tang,
What other items can you people name came from the space program?

Cool" Laser Heart Surgery
Space Telescope science
Body Imaging
New Arms and Legs
Infrared Thermometer
Light emitting diodes (LED)
Composite Forceps
Pill-Sized Transmitter
Chromosome Analysis
Digital Mammography
Camera on a Chip
Lightning Protection
Windshear Prediction
Collision Avoidance
Cordless Power Tools and Appliances
Smoke Detector
Clean Water for the Home
Home Insulation
Firefighter Breathing System
Global Communications

and these couldn't have possibly been developed be researching something else?
 
Should we not solve the problems here on the Earth first , before venturing out into space.
Hunger, clean drinking water, housing for the homeless.
Get our house in order ,before venturing out , is what I was always told.!!

we cant work on space science while straightening out the house?.....why not work with all the other Space faring nations and divide the costs,pool resources,the best scientists the world over working on it,the worlds aviation companies pitching in,EVERYBODY benifits.....the world goes out there TOGETHER....
 
Should we not solve the problems here on the Earth first , before venturing out into space.
Hunger, clean drinking water, housing for the homeless.
Get our house in order ,before venturing out , is what I was always told.!!

we cant work on space science while straightening out the house?.....why not work with all the other Space faring nations and divide the costs,pool resources,the best scientists the world over working on it,the worlds aviation companies pitching in,EVERYBODY benifits.....the world goes out there TOGETHER....

because science is political and a money maker ?
 
How many can we name, the laptop computer, came from a design from the LEM, Lunar Excursion Module, and the computers that were used onboard. Velcro, Tang,
What other items can you people name came from the space program?

Cool" Laser Heart Surgery
Space Telescope science
Body Imaging
New Arms and Legs
Infrared Thermometer
Light emitting diodes (LED)
Composite Forceps
Pill-Sized Transmitter
Chromosome Analysis
Digital Mammography
Camera on a Chip
Lightning Protection
Windshear Prediction
Collision Avoidance
Cordless Power Tools and Appliances
Smoke Detector
Clean Water for the Home
Home Insulation
Firefighter Breathing System
Global Communications

and these couldn't have possibly been developed be researching something else?
they could but they were not.....like Navy said....for the budget NASA has....its a bargain for what they have given back....
 
Cool" Laser Heart Surgery
Space Telescope science
Body Imaging
New Arms and Legs
Infrared Thermometer
Light emitting diodes (LED)
Composite Forceps
Pill-Sized Transmitter
Chromosome Analysis
Digital Mammography
Camera on a Chip
Lightning Protection
Windshear Prediction
Collision Avoidance
Cordless Power Tools and Appliances
Smoke Detector
Clean Water for the Home
Home Insulation
Firefighter Breathing System
Global Communications

and these couldn't have possibly been developed be researching something else?
they could but they were not.....like Navy said....for the budget NASA has....its a bargain for what they have given back....

awesome---maybe researching the brain or the ocean would reap big side effects too and be cheaper
 
Okay people say it's a waste of money, well here is an example of why this decision is nonsense in terms of spending money here at home. There is a new Presidential helicopter called the VH-71 that has been cancelled and then restarted by the DoD several times and as of late the last decision made on this Presidential helicopter is that they would deliver 5 units made in Italy and then cancel the program for an overall program cost of 8 Billion dollars that means that these helicopters cost per unit more than a B-1 bomber and much more than a F-22 and represent almost 50% of an ENTIRE year of NASA's budget. So this argument about saving money for use here on earth is nonsense. The real issue is that NASA is being re-tasked as an agency to support climate change science. The investment in rent-a-rides of course is going to be supported by those that are on the commission that made these recommendations in the first place as they stand to get a lot of money from building rockets that have little lifting capacity other than rockets with enough power that can place observable low earth orbit sats. in place. This kind of rocket technology has been around since the late 50's and many nations have this technology. What they don't have is heavy lifting capability or the infrastucture or experience in manned space flight to support the International Space Station that our nation has invested tens of billions of dollars in and with this decision we will now depend on Russia to get us there. I'm very disappointed that some would defend this decision because it means that they are willing to accept that our nation is average and leave to the next generation of Americans a legacy of mediocrity.
 
Last edited:
The only science Republicans are interested in is making new types of bombs.

Come on. There people believe "evolution" is a "religion".

Only 6% of scientists are Republicans. Conservatism is about looking back. Stifling innovation. Maintaining the status quo. Being average or below.

Scientists are educated, thoughtful people. Everything Republicans call, "Elitist". It's really hard to believe they would have any positive opinion.

I bet many think developing new rocket engines is a waste of time and can't see the benefit, unless it's to deploy some new type of explosive.
 
The only science Republicans are interested in is making new types of bombs.

Come on. There people believe "evolution" is a "religion".

Only 6% of scientists are Republicans. Conservatism is about looking back. Stifling innovation. Maintaining the status quo. Being average or below.

Scientists are educated, thoughtful people. Everything Republicans call, "Elitist". It's really hard to believe they would have any positive opinion.

I bet many think developing new rocket engines is a waste of time and can't see the benefit, unless it's to deploy some new type of explosive.

Which, of course, is why there is strong bipartisan support to keep exploring space exploration contrary to Obama's plan and why you supporting Obama's plan to cut it.
 
The only science Republicans are interested in is making new types of bombs.

Come on. There people believe "evolution" is a "religion".

Only 6% of scientists are Republicans. Conservatism is about looking back. Stifling innovation. Maintaining the status quo. Being average or below.

Scientists are educated, thoughtful people. Everything Republicans call, "Elitist". It's really hard to believe they would have any positive opinion.

I bet many think developing new rocket engines is a waste of time and can't see the benefit, unless it's to deploy some new type of explosive.

Which, of course, is why there is strong bipartisan support to keep exploring space exploration contrary to Obama's plan and why you supporting Obama's plan to cut it.

Gawd you guys are dumb. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results.

We already went to the moon. Republicans have no goal except "let's go to the moon again" using the same rockets and technology we have now.

Obama wants to redirect the "moon" budget into development and innovation, two words Republicans absolutely hate.

If it were up to Republicans, we would have stopped at "bottle rockets". Come on. Only 6% of scientists are Republcians. Once the bipartisan commission is over, everything else would depend on those "elitist" Democratic scientists.

Hmmmm, wouldn't it be funny if there were more gay scientists than Republican scientists? It's not only possible, but probable.
 
The only science Republicans are interested in is making new types of bombs.

Come on. There people believe "evolution" is a "religion".

Only 6% of scientists are Republicans. Conservatism is about looking back. Stifling innovation. Maintaining the status quo. Being average or below.

Scientists are educated, thoughtful people. Everything Republicans call, "Elitist". It's really hard to believe they would have any positive opinion.

I bet many think developing new rocket engines is a waste of time and can't see the benefit, unless it's to deploy some new type of explosive.

You bet wrong, even the Augustine committee that made the recommendations to the President that resulted in the ending of the Constellation program don't share your opinion.

“Exploration provides an opportunity to demonstrate space leadership while deeply engaging international partners; to inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers; and to shape human perceptions of our place in the Universe,” the panel states. “The committee concluded that the ultimate goal of human exploration is to chart a path for human expansion into the solar system.”

For travel beyond LEO, the panel offered a “lite” version of the Ares V heavy lifter that would use two five-segment versions of the four-segment space shuttle booster instead of the 5.5-segment version, and six RD-68A rocket engines instead of the RD-68B upgrade. That would cut its performance to 143 metric tons to LEO from 159 metric tons.

Other options would be a shuttle-derived heavy lifter capable of orbiting 100‑110 metric tons, and versions of the Atlas V or Delta IV heavy lifters that could put about 75 metric tons in orbit.
Augustine Taking Findings to Capitol Hill | AVIATION WEEK

By the way in case your wondering, most if not all the members of that committee are scientists among them Dr. Sally Ride and I know you have heard of her.
 
The only science Republicans are interested in is making new types of bombs.

Come on. There people believe "evolution" is a "religion".

Only 6% of scientists are Republicans. Conservatism is about looking back. Stifling innovation. Maintaining the status quo. Being average or below.

Scientists are educated, thoughtful people. Everything Republicans call, "Elitist". It's really hard to believe they would have any positive opinion.

I bet many think developing new rocket engines is a waste of time and can't see the benefit, unless it's to deploy some new type of explosive.

Which, of course, is why there is strong bipartisan support to keep exploring space exploration contrary to Obama's plan and why you supporting Obama's plan to cut it.

Gawd you guys are dumb. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results.

We already went to the moon. Republicans have no goal except "let's go to the moon again" using the same rockets and technology we have now.

Obama wants to redirect the "moon" budget into development and innovation, two words Republicans absolutely hate.

If it were up to Republicans, we would have stopped at "bottle rockets". Come on. Only 6% of scientists are Republcians. Once the bipartisan commission is over, everything else would depend on those "elitist" Democratic scientists.

Hmmmm, wouldn't it be funny if there were more gay scientists than Republican scientists? It's not only possible, but probable.

Schmitt graduated from Caltech and then went on to Harvard to receive his Ph.D in geology. He was just the kind of brilliant young mind that Eugene Shoemaker at the US Geological Survey wanted in the newly formed Branch of Astrogeology. He joined the USGS in Flagstaff, Arizona in 1964. Later that year, NASA had a call for scientist-astronauts for Apollo, and Schmitt applied. Only six were finally chosen out of the more than 1,000 applicants; Schmitt was one of them. He transferred to NASA in 1965 and began his comprehensive training. He was selected as backup lunar module pilot for Apollo 15, and ultimately lunar module pilot for Apollo 17, the last mission to the Moon in the 20th century. Schmitt’s three days in the Taurus-Littrow region of the Moon with mission commander Eugene Cernan left him with the fact that the Moon was not only to be explored, but to also one day be exploited for humanity’s benefit

Schmitt does not see our return to the Moon as economically viable without private enterprise becoming integrally involved, and justified only if America and its partners return to the Moon to stay. That means a permanent base, and eventually several bases. Schmitt’s book acknowledges the need to exploit the Moon’s resources in situ. The chief motivation in returning to the Moon, writes Schmitt, is the potential for energy generation that is locked within the lunar soil. Helium-3, arriving at the Moon by the solar wind, is imbedded deep in the lunar soil as a trace, non-radioactive isotope. Schmitt says the energy in the raw lunar soil could be unleashed through the process of deuterium/helium-3 fusion. Small-scale fusion experiments have been taking place at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Fusion Technology Institute, where Schmitt is a professor. He discusses other means of fusion processes in context. What Schmitt envisions for the future are spacecraft returning small quantities of helium-3 from mined and processed lunar soil to Earth. There,Êdeuterium/helium-3 fusion would be used to generate energy. He goes into considerable detail explaining the economics of making this viable.

The Space Review: Review: Return to the Moon

Guess what? He is a scientist and actually walked on the moon. Something else too, he actually is an advocate for private enterprise American private enterprise going to the moon because he does not thing the Govt. or NASA has the vision to go there and he's right. You really should do a little more research on the subject before you make blanket statements.
 
and these couldn't have possibly been developed be researching something else?
they could but they were not.....like Navy said....for the budget NASA has....its a bargain for what they have given back....

awesome---maybe researching the brain or the ocean would reap big side effects too and be cheaper
Perhaps you should start the process by donating your brain to research, seeing as how you are not using it.
 
Samples collected in 1969 by Neil Armstrong during the first lunar landing showed that helium-3 concentrations in lunar soil are at least 13 parts per billion (ppb) by weight. Levels may range from 20 to 30 ppb in undisturbed soils. Quantities as small as 20 ppb may seem too trivial to consider. But at a projected value of $40,000 per ounce, 220 pounds of helium-3 would be worth about $141 million.

Because the concentration of helium- 3 is extremely low, it would be necessary to process large amounts of rock and soil to isolate the material. Digging a patch of lunar surface roughly three-quarters of a square mile to a depth of about 9 ft. should yield about 220 pounds of helium-3— enough to power a city the size of Dallas or Detroit for a year.

Although considerable lunar soil would have to be processed, the mining costs would not be high by terrestrial standards. Automated machines, perhaps like those shown in Figure 1, might perform the work. Extracting the isotope would not be particularly difficult. Heating and agitation release gases trapped in the soil. As the vapors are cooled to absolute zero, the various gases present sequentially separate out of the mix. In the final step, special membranes would separate helium-3 from ordinary helium.

The total estimated cost for fusion development, rocket development, and starting lunar operations would be about $15 billion. The International Thermonuclear Reactor Project, with a current estimated cost of $10 billion for a proof-of-concept reactor, is just a small part of the necessary development of tritium-based fusion and does not include the problems of commercialization and waste disposal.

Mining the Moon, by Harrison H. Schmitt, #70012 (2004).

A return to the Moon to stay would be at least comparable to the first permanent settlement of America if not to the movement of our species out of Africa.

I am skeptical that the U.S. Government can be counted on to make such a "sustained commitment" absent unanticipated circumstances comparable to those of the late 1950s and early 1960s. Therefore, I have spent much of the last decade exploring what it would take for private investors to make such a commitment. At least it is clear that investors will stick with a project if presented to them with a credible business plan and a rate of return commensurate with the risk to invested capital. My colleagues at the Fusion Technology Institute of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Interlune-Intermars Initiative, Inc. believe that such a commercially viable project exists in lunar helium-3 used as a fuel for fusion electric power plants on Earth. Lunar helium-3, arriving at the Moon as part of the solar wind, is imbedded as a trace, non-radioactive isotope in the lunar soils. There is a resource base of helium-3 about of 10,000 metric tonnes just in upper three meters of the titanium-rich soils of Mare Tranquillitatis. The energy equivalent value of Helium-3 delivered to operating fusion power plants on Earth would be about $4 billion per tonne relative to today's coal. Coal, of course, supplies about half of the approximately $40 billion domestic electrical power market.

A business and investor based approach to a return to the Moon to stay represents a clear alternative to initiatives by the U.S. Government or by a coalition of other countries. A business-investor approach, supported by the potential of lunar Helium-3 fusion power, and derivative technologies and resources, offers the greatest likelihood of a predictable and sustained commitment to a return to deep space.

TESTIMONY

HON. HARRISON H. SCHMITT,CHAIRMAN

In case your wondering, He was the the last man on the moon with Apollo 17 and is a scientist with several degree's , so knows a little about the subject.
 
Human beings do not belong in space. Space exploration destroys bone tissue. The zero gravity weakens bones, and destroys muscle tissue.
That space money could be spent here on Earth.! People are dying every day because of drinking dirty water. Stop this insane, childish , waste of money. When are you people going to grow up.? Stop acting like children wanting a new toy rocket. Take care of the Earths responsibility first.There are to many problems here on Earth, for us to waste money out in space.!!
 

Forum List

Back
Top